Evidence for God from Science

Answer THOSE questions.

They are invalid questions...=/ I've explained myself already. I don't care to get in an infinite loop of misunderstanding. So I'll go ahead and let you have the last word, make it meaningful.

His point that you haven't really addressed is that there are metaphysical principles that exist apart from matter and energy and natural laws (like gravity, strong nuclear force, etc). These principles include all the rules of logic.

Going back to what I initially said: There is something rather than nothing. There must be some sort of extra-natural explanation for a system that we call 'the natural' if one of its basic principles is that it must have a cause. Supernatural is, in its most strict understanding, an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Once we can establish the supernatural is required for the natural to exist (since naturally, nature cannot arise from nothing), we then can argue about what the supernatural includes.

Illogical conclusion. Refer to "God of gaps"
Because we do not know something, it is not logical to "insert supernatural cause here".
As well, including the supernatural on the assumption that the natural cannot occur on its own, does not solve the equation, only further complicated it.

As for his point, I suppose we can talk about Quantum Mechanics. Which I admit is confusing as all hell. Due to the fact that every single observational fact in life has been shown to follow certain laws of nature (which in the metaphysical world, sometimes seem to be contradicted), it is actually reasonable to assume we do not know of every factor involved in such subjects. (Quantum mechanics is still objective reality.)

Wrong. If by definition, the natural cannot create itself, than if it has a beginning at all, the beginning must be beyond the natural.

It is the ONLY explanation.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Wrong. If by definition, the natural cannot create itself, than if it has a beginning at all, the beginning must be beyond the natural.

It is the ONLY explanation.

I understand your point, but it is illogical.
It also leads to paradoxes.
The issue is, the question "what happened before the big bang" is not a logical question. There was no time in which for any event to take place (including supernatural).
If there is a God who can bend reason and do "anything", he must also be able to work out paradoxes. This is the omnipotence paradox, if you were unaware

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.

Refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html (All references are at the bottom.)

Wrong again. You assume time is a necessary component for cause and effect. A cause does not need to occur temporally before an effect, or there would be no universe. As you say, science has us thinking now that time came about with matter. If this is the case, there still must be a cause. The natural reality cannot simply and suddenly exist! And whatever the non-temporal cause was, it was beyond the natural.

Please tell me why it is more logical to assume that the universe has no cause than that it does. Where is my argument 'illogical'.

Also, that quote you gave from the site shows a complete inability to understand how God actually exists. That argument has been disproven and made irrelevant for so long it shouldn't even be brought up anymore.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Wrong again. You assume time is a necessary component for cause and effect. A cause does not need to occur temporally before an effect, or there would be no universe. As you say, science has us thinking now that time came about with matter. If this is the case, there still must be a cause. The natural reality cannot simply and suddenly exist! And whatever the non-temporal cause was, it was beyond the natural.

Please tell me why it is more logical to assume that the universe has no cause than that it does. Where is my argument 'illogical'.

There is no such thing as a cause that requires no time. ( You are welcome to prove otherwise).

Also, that quote you gave from the site shows a complete inability to understand how God actually exists.

The quote is not from that site. The quote is still perfectly reasonable, you saying otherwise does not add to the conversation.

The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

Illogical conclusion. Your logic is illogical.

This is going about as far as not having a conversation at all. I don't feel any need to continue at this point with you.

aimforthehead wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

What is inherently flawed about it? That you can't answer it?

aimforthehead wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

Oh my gosh. I am astounded. All he asks is for you to explain your position, and you say "your question is illogical?"
It wasn't even a question! I am just blown away. Do you really think that you can dominate any debate by shutting your ears and just calling the other side illogical?
The fact that this is over the Net makes no difference. Have some respect, sir, for the people you challenge. Otherwise no one will want to speak with you, and you won't have that wonderful victory you've been dreaming of over the "delusion of religion."

With all these 'your argument is invalid' things being thrown around, this was really the first thing that came to mind:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com ... a_bird.jpg


Thought I'd lighten the mood a little. But seriously... saying something is illogical doesn't make it illogical. My logic was okay. You may disagree with the premises or the conclusions, but I didn't say anything terribly illogical.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

aimforthehead wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

What is inherently flawed about it? That you can't answer it?

It requests an event before time. This makes no sense as time is a required variable of an event (which, if you disagree with I suppose that puts us at odds in any debate on the matter. But consider the logic of taking such a stance before you do. Think of an event which requires no time). I'd recommend you at least go through a few lines in my link, you'll find it to be quite sound. (One of my favorite images, btw)

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:

aimforthehead wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

Oh my gosh. I am astounded. All he asks is for you to explain your position, and you say "your question is illogical?"
It wasn't even a question! I am just blown away. Do you really think that you can dominate any debate by shutting your ears and just calling the other side illogical?
The fact that this is over the Net makes no difference. Have some respect, sir, for the people you challenge. Otherwise no one will want to speak with you, and you won't have that wonderful victory you've been dreaming of over the "delusion of religion."

A belief in god is not necessarily illogical. A belief in god on the basis that we do not know something that is inherently nonsensical, is what is illogical.

I'll try and play ball a little more, so, "what happened before the universe", assuming something could have, I'd have to say God is a possibility (mostly because I am not 100% sure of anything). But a reasonable, natural cause is more likely given that is generally the case (by generally, I mean always). I hope this was a more acceptable answer.